Even by the standards of recent movies by Nicole Holofcener, You Hurt My Feelings seems exceptionally banal. Her characteristic observational style was once acute, without being mean or acerbic (her first feature Walking and Talking is IMO the best-achieved example). But now (actually, since as early as her 2006 feature Friends With Money, which seemed to me to be an almost entirely unquestioning account of the self-regarding behaviours of er.. rich friends) 'obtuse' seems a more appropriate description. Most of the posts on this film I have seen seem to be negative, and I don't want to Pile On any further. I should admit here that movies about rich New Yorkers almost invariably leave me feeling like I'm standing out in the cold, while the movie characters are admiring each other in front of a roaring fire in a richly-appointed drawing room. But even so, You Hurt My Feelings seems to be populated solely by dull, unconscious narcissists with no interesting views on themselves or each other. Who pays for this? Well, A24 evidently paid for the movie; but who buys tickets to see it? I'm in 'the trade', so I see it for free. But why does A24, or any of the filmmaking participants, expect real people to buy tickets? Sorry folks.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Long Days of Vengeance
(1967)
Flawed but brilliant, underestimated spaghetti western...
21 June 2023
Long Days of Vengeance is remarkably gripping for a movie whose story makes little sense - and carrying a 'comic' subplot that makes sense even less. Although it's the only western by the evidently accomplished and serious-minded director Florestano Vancini, he clearly understands the genre as it has developed in Italy by 1967. His job is to animate the often illogical action with a vibrant mise-en-scene, featuring often eye-popping visuals that facilitate the razor-sharp editing. It is visually exceptionally powerful, counterpointing its dynamic framing and movement with a brilliant Morricone-esque score by Armando Trovajoli. Vancini has a decisive visual approach; scenes and sequences are blocked and framed in a highly explicit way, announcing to the viewer just how this particular event will be explored, while maintaining tremendous flexibility in moving between different characters' point-of-view within scenes.
The writers (including the inventive Fernando di Leo) have already grasped the obligatory scenes of the Italian western: the prison escape; the barber shop stand-off; the extended barroom battle; pitting two gangs against each other; the hero suffering a debilitating, scarring beating; the interrupted hanging, and here each is staged as a standout set-piece. (The barber shop stand-off is especially effective as a suspense sequence, while using its excruciatingly extended timescale to unpack the hero's backstory.) Yet the story is constantly pushed forward, leaving the viewer little time to reflect on how unlikely the hero's actions usually are.
Giuliano Gemma is the Count of Monte Cristo here, out for revenge (two years after portraying Odysseus' return home in Tessari's magnificent Return of Ringo). Vancini lets Gemma's beauty speak for itself, and he observes the former stuntman's dangerous physical moves, swinging up buildings, between roofs and under trains, without nudging us. The topline cast acquit themselves very well, particularly Nieves Navarro and Francisco Rabal as a poisoned couple with a dark backstory. The patrician Navarro is especially powerful, constantly switching affiliation, yet seeming haunted by her own betrayals. Special mention also to Conrado San Martin as chief villain Cobb, playing a deranged lookalike of Sir Christopher Frayling, author of the definitive book 'Spaghetti Westerns'. (It's a remarkably prescient homage, considering that Long Days was released in 1967, and Frayling's book wasn't published until 1981.)
However the film's comedic/romantic sub-plot featuring Manuel Muniz and Gabriella Giorgelli is thin, contributing almost nothing to the story, and detracts from its dramatic development. It seems likely that this comic strand was seen as an essential feature of a Gemma movie, but it causes often jarring tonal shifts as it collides with the dark and violent central narrative. If it weren't for this unnecessary element, Long Days of Violence would have a much higher critical reputation. Yet even with this strand, it remains an outstanding example of the genre, deserving a much more prominent place in the canon.
The writers (including the inventive Fernando di Leo) have already grasped the obligatory scenes of the Italian western: the prison escape; the barber shop stand-off; the extended barroom battle; pitting two gangs against each other; the hero suffering a debilitating, scarring beating; the interrupted hanging, and here each is staged as a standout set-piece. (The barber shop stand-off is especially effective as a suspense sequence, while using its excruciatingly extended timescale to unpack the hero's backstory.) Yet the story is constantly pushed forward, leaving the viewer little time to reflect on how unlikely the hero's actions usually are.
Giuliano Gemma is the Count of Monte Cristo here, out for revenge (two years after portraying Odysseus' return home in Tessari's magnificent Return of Ringo). Vancini lets Gemma's beauty speak for itself, and he observes the former stuntman's dangerous physical moves, swinging up buildings, between roofs and under trains, without nudging us. The topline cast acquit themselves very well, particularly Nieves Navarro and Francisco Rabal as a poisoned couple with a dark backstory. The patrician Navarro is especially powerful, constantly switching affiliation, yet seeming haunted by her own betrayals. Special mention also to Conrado San Martin as chief villain Cobb, playing a deranged lookalike of Sir Christopher Frayling, author of the definitive book 'Spaghetti Westerns'. (It's a remarkably prescient homage, considering that Long Days was released in 1967, and Frayling's book wasn't published until 1981.)
However the film's comedic/romantic sub-plot featuring Manuel Muniz and Gabriella Giorgelli is thin, contributing almost nothing to the story, and detracts from its dramatic development. It seems likely that this comic strand was seen as an essential feature of a Gemma movie, but it causes often jarring tonal shifts as it collides with the dark and violent central narrative. If it weren't for this unnecessary element, Long Days of Violence would have a much higher critical reputation. Yet even with this strand, it remains an outstanding example of the genre, deserving a much more prominent place in the canon.
The Reckoning
(1970)
A Powerful, Bravura Picture
2 December 2012
I am in complete agreement with dan-filson-928-874987: THE RECKONING (which could almost be called a lost film now)is a powerful drama with a bravura performance by Nicol Williamson at its heart. Williamson specialised in being hard to like: he relished the negative attributes of every character he played. His performances tend to be quite broad, but the complete absence of sentimentality keeps them fresh. In THE RECKONING director Jack Gold keeps theatricality at bay. The powerful ending described by dan-filson-928-874987 is a fresh memory for me even after 40 years. Yes, there are similarities to GET CARTER: but CARTER is a genre picture, and THE RECKONING is a character drama. Both films are highly accomplished, but comparing them doesn't really shed much light on either, in my opinion. Time for Columbia or the BFI to get hold of a master and issue this on DVD.
Baby Face Nelson
(1957)
Ferocious Lost Film
18 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Don Siegel's BABY FACE NELSON is one of the harshest, most ferocious of movies; its conclusion one of the bleakest ever filmed. Siegel hit this same note of bitter cynicism again later in his career with DIRTY HARRY; but because BABY FACE NELSON offers no redemption for its protagonist, it is the more direct and powerful film. The central performance by Mickey Rooney ranks with Cagney's Cody Jarrett in Walsh's WHITE HEAT, in its absolute lack of sentimentality, utterly uninterested in ingratiation. One of the most chilling moments is when Nelson abruptly sets free a hostage instead of killing him: Rooney offers no clue as to why. There is no reason why: it is a whim as little understood by Nelson as by the viewer.
An independent production originally released through United Artists, it has not been seen theatrically for several decades, and seems never to have been issued on DVD. Long overdue for rediscovery, BABY FACE NELSON should take its place alongside Siegel's better known pictures THE LINE UP and HELL IS FOR HEROES as a dark and chilling masterpiece.
An independent production originally released through United Artists, it has not been seen theatrically for several decades, and seems never to have been issued on DVD. Long overdue for rediscovery, BABY FACE NELSON should take its place alongside Siegel's better known pictures THE LINE UP and HELL IS FOR HEROES as a dark and chilling masterpiece.
Pathology
(2008)
Damaged, unfinished, cynical mess
12 April 2008
Pathology might have been an interesting movie if they hadn't evidently chopped out much of the exposition.
Milo Ventimiglia arrives as intern at NY city pathologists office, discovering all but one of his fellow interns are psychos, bullies and junkies. Understandably, he doesn't want anything to do with them. Then, suddenly, he's joined the gang, and is vying with their chief psycho to out-gross them all, while conducting a steamy affair with a woman in whom he has previously shown no interest whatsoever.
It's like the producers thought they'd just like to get to the sex and blood, and the subject matter and story were getting in the way. They've made a film that purports to explore the further shores of moral jeopardy, but actually hasn't the faintest idea of its own ethical parameters.
What is really morally objectionable is that MGM has released a film that makes no sense, has no proper starting point or conclusion, and yet they expect Moviegoers to pay full rate to see this damaged, unfinished, witless and cynical mess.
Milo Ventimiglia arrives as intern at NY city pathologists office, discovering all but one of his fellow interns are psychos, bullies and junkies. Understandably, he doesn't want anything to do with them. Then, suddenly, he's joined the gang, and is vying with their chief psycho to out-gross them all, while conducting a steamy affair with a woman in whom he has previously shown no interest whatsoever.
It's like the producers thought they'd just like to get to the sex and blood, and the subject matter and story were getting in the way. They've made a film that purports to explore the further shores of moral jeopardy, but actually hasn't the faintest idea of its own ethical parameters.
What is really morally objectionable is that MGM has released a film that makes no sense, has no proper starting point or conclusion, and yet they expect Moviegoers to pay full rate to see this damaged, unfinished, witless and cynical mess.
Chimera
(1991– )
MONKEY BOY is a re-edited version of CHIMERA
26 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
MONKEY BOY is a 100-minute re-edited version of the 4-part, 208-minute CHIMERA.
CHIMERA was adapted from his own novel by Stephen Gallagher, a prolific, widely-respected and internationally published UK author of fantasy and speculative fiction. It is based on first-hand research into scientific experiments on DNA manipulation, and in its original form, is one of the few pieces of genuine science-fiction writing to appear on British TV screens. CHIMERA has been transmitted several times in its original version on UK ITV. It is a fine, and very frightening piece of speculative drama, recently voted one of the 20 scariest UK TV dramas ever in a recent poll by the venerable UK listings magazine 'Radio Times'.
MONKEY BOY is missing virtually the entire first hour of CHIMERA, which sets up a whole host of characters, in particular the scientists conducting the experiment combining human and chimpanzee DNA to develop a cross-species animal for further laboratory experiment and possible future use as slave labor or by the military. In a shock twist - never equalled in UK TV drama - at the end of the first hour-long episode, all but two of established characters are killed by the escaped mutant beast.
The story then proceeds along an entirely new line, cross-cutting between the survivors' attempts to track down the animal, and the highly intelligent human-chimp (Chad) - a ferocious but increasingly sympathetic figure. CHIMERA articulates the debate about the use of animals in scientific experiment in a powerful, compulsive drama, which attracted many admiring reviews on its first appearance on ITV.
The original has never been released on video or DVD. Sadly, MONKEY BOY remains all too available.
CHIMERA was adapted from his own novel by Stephen Gallagher, a prolific, widely-respected and internationally published UK author of fantasy and speculative fiction. It is based on first-hand research into scientific experiments on DNA manipulation, and in its original form, is one of the few pieces of genuine science-fiction writing to appear on British TV screens. CHIMERA has been transmitted several times in its original version on UK ITV. It is a fine, and very frightening piece of speculative drama, recently voted one of the 20 scariest UK TV dramas ever in a recent poll by the venerable UK listings magazine 'Radio Times'.
MONKEY BOY is missing virtually the entire first hour of CHIMERA, which sets up a whole host of characters, in particular the scientists conducting the experiment combining human and chimpanzee DNA to develop a cross-species animal for further laboratory experiment and possible future use as slave labor or by the military. In a shock twist - never equalled in UK TV drama - at the end of the first hour-long episode, all but two of established characters are killed by the escaped mutant beast.
The story then proceeds along an entirely new line, cross-cutting between the survivors' attempts to track down the animal, and the highly intelligent human-chimp (Chad) - a ferocious but increasingly sympathetic figure. CHIMERA articulates the debate about the use of animals in scientific experiment in a powerful, compulsive drama, which attracted many admiring reviews on its first appearance on ITV.
The original has never been released on video or DVD. Sadly, MONKEY BOY remains all too available.
America America
(1963)
A Forgotten Masterpiece
11 August 2002
Kazan's reputation seems to have been diminishing for some time, a process, ironically, that his 'Lifetime Achievement' Oscar seems to have accelerated. Yeah, he did betray his fellows and himself in the 1950s. Again, ironically, it's the films he made later in his career, which show the scars of his loss of self-esteem, which are the most fascinating - WILD RIVER, SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS, THE ARRANGEMENT - and most powerful of them all, AMERICA AMERICA.
I too am surprised that this monument to Americanism and monument of American cinema, seems not very widely known in America itself. It has all the values of classic American cinema - a strong, simple narrative, a limpid visual style which eschews any directorial histrionics to concentrate purely on the characters. It is the story of young men driven from their homeland and making the long voyage to America - the huddled masses yearning to be free. The journey is long and terribly hard, and even as the shore of American comes into view, sacrifices still have to be made. The end of the film is enormously powerful, one of the most moving I have ever seen - the effect is still with me now, 30 years after seeing it.
It is the story of Kazan's father and uncle - the character who makes an appearance, played by Richard Boone, in Kazan's more heavily fictionalised subsequent film THE ARRANGEMENT. It is a personal story, and the simplicity of the telling seems like the end of a process of endless re-telling around smokey fireplaces, and before children go to sleep, a family saga which has almost attained the status of myth. The savagery of the film's first hour, and the dream-like quality of the last act make AMERICA AMERICA a genuine and powerful part of American mythology.
So don't torture yourself about whether Kazan was morally and politically wrong in betraying his colleagues - see AMERICA AMERICA, and you'll see why he could never have acted any differently. Yes, he was a radical, and a leftist, and a deeply intelligent and passionate man; but he was also an immigrant - and his horror of disenfranchisement and ejection overcame his moral and political views. Kazan may criticise aspects of its culture and politics, but he loves and respects and is grateful to America above all. So he made his choice. He could have made no other.
I too am surprised that this monument to Americanism and monument of American cinema, seems not very widely known in America itself. It has all the values of classic American cinema - a strong, simple narrative, a limpid visual style which eschews any directorial histrionics to concentrate purely on the characters. It is the story of young men driven from their homeland and making the long voyage to America - the huddled masses yearning to be free. The journey is long and terribly hard, and even as the shore of American comes into view, sacrifices still have to be made. The end of the film is enormously powerful, one of the most moving I have ever seen - the effect is still with me now, 30 years after seeing it.
It is the story of Kazan's father and uncle - the character who makes an appearance, played by Richard Boone, in Kazan's more heavily fictionalised subsequent film THE ARRANGEMENT. It is a personal story, and the simplicity of the telling seems like the end of a process of endless re-telling around smokey fireplaces, and before children go to sleep, a family saga which has almost attained the status of myth. The savagery of the film's first hour, and the dream-like quality of the last act make AMERICA AMERICA a genuine and powerful part of American mythology.
So don't torture yourself about whether Kazan was morally and politically wrong in betraying his colleagues - see AMERICA AMERICA, and you'll see why he could never have acted any differently. Yes, he was a radical, and a leftist, and a deeply intelligent and passionate man; but he was also an immigrant - and his horror of disenfranchisement and ejection overcame his moral and political views. Kazan may criticise aspects of its culture and politics, but he loves and respects and is grateful to America above all. So he made his choice. He could have made no other.
Tell Your Friends